[mormeguil]

I have been taking an industrial relation class recently and it got me thinking a bit about the idea behind worker unions.

Mostly about the premise behind them. Maybe the way they are implemented are not the best, but still they do seem to relies on basic premise that are important.

1) The employer as a lot more power then a single employee. Any one on one negotiations can be to the advantage of the employer.

2) An union of worker help getting a more similar leverage to that of the employer and also create a situation where salary and other advantage are given with egality (maybe not equity, but that could be solved with the new practice in human ressources).

So overall, I was wondering what are your ideas on this. I do have to say I live in the moste syndicalised region of North America so my views can be slightly biased.

[Aronnax]

Collusion to control prices and resources are a natural consequence of an unregulated market. This applies to all interactions, not just the price of goods.

[ZerroDefex]

Unions had a good idea behind them, but nowadays they are bloated monstrosities more focused on protecting their own leadership at the expense of the industry and can be a hindrance to progress and innovation. They are more concerned with making it impossible to fire underperforming employees rather than helping skilled ones excel.

[mormeguil]

I mean, if the idea behind it is good, how should we go at realising that idea "correctly" ?

[Aronnax]

Union members have to do a better job holding their leaders accountable for their actions. It's no different than any collective body; the members are responsible for holding their leaders accountable. When they allow their power to be whittled away though bylaws and bureaucratic layers the end result is always going to be bad. This is true for unions, publicly traded companies and Governments.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Union members have to do a better job holding their leaders accountable for their actions.

Yeah. I don't know of any magic way that a system can be perfect by nature. All I can think of recommending in these kinds of situations are the obvious things-- the people who are interested and active in a union need to figure out ways to reach wider audiences and be more convincing in promoting their ideas. Work at it, get involved, put in some effort and time, and all those other things that seem so minor and inconsequential. Grassroots kinds of things, and also open communication so that effective ideas can spread from chapter to chapter and union to union.

I don't know of any other way to improve something as large-scale as people's employment conditions, or any other sociological issue like this.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by mormeguil To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I mean, if the idea behind it is good, how should we go at realising that idea "correctly" ?

I believe we should have allowed General Motors to fail, as we did Eastern Airlines, to remind organized labor that there is such a thing as asking for too much. GM and the Unions agreed to contracts by way of negotiation - a collective bargaining agreement. GM should not have agreed to more than they could afford; even if it meant bankruptcy and a great loss of American production jobs. A government bail-out only served to reinforce the unrealistic demands of one side, and the willful compliance of the other.

If demand was truly there, another company would have come along to fill it, and a new bargaining agreement could have then been made. I like the idea of organized labor, but not the idea of domineering Unions.

[iamnik77]

I would be surprised if any labor union could overpower the market forces of supply and demand. If employee/employer relations are too advantageous to the employer, it seems the employees would jump ship and the employer would be forced to raise compensation to get the needed labor. If they become too advantageous to the employees, the company could be pressured to shut down due to profit margins getting squeezed down to nothing.

[tracemhunter]

I used to work as a manager in a unionized company. Unions are a pain in the ass and give the workers far too much power. They would often show up late simply because they knew there would not be any real disciplinary action. An employee could not show up for work without calling 10 days in a row and not get fired.

Unions are the reason Chrysler went belly up. They asked for too damn much even after they had retired.

[titi monkey]

Originally Posted by iamnik77 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would be surprised if any labor union could overpower the market forces of supply and demand. If employee/employer relations are too advantageous to the employer, it seems the employees would jump ship and the employer would be forced to raise compensation to get the needed labor. If they become too advantageous to the employees, the company could be pressured to shut down due to profit margins getting squeezed down to nothing.

Where does government bail-out fit into that?

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by iamnik77 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would be surprised if any labor union could overpower the market forces of supply and demand. If employee/employer relations are too advantageous to the employer, it seems the employees would jump ship and the employer would be forced to raise compensation to get the needed labor.

Oligopolies routinely colluded to determine wages and blacklist workers who "caused problems". As long as most employers played ball they never had to worry about getting into a wage competition for low skill labor. This behavior was what gave birth to Unions in the US.

	If they become too advantageous to the employees, the company could be pressured to shut down due to profit margins getting squeezed down to nothing.

This is true, or they could just act as a parasitic drag, causing the company to fail decades after the original employees retired. It's like a blue collar golden parachute, but most don't see it that way.

"Market forces will fix it" is a gross oversimplification for certain problems because market corrections and humans don't necessarily live on the same time scale.

[mormeguil]

Just to let you know, I have worked in an union environement and have seen a few problems related to it. Overall here is what I saw:

- small groupes pretty much running it how they want due to low implication from other

- I did not see any problem with disciplinary action. Most of the time they where included in the contract already. Other case they where dealt with by the union and employer.

- I did see a pretty high level of work effort because a good part of the salary was bonus based.

- They had a problem of the Union lead stealing about 500 000$ over about 8 years. The person was caugh and emprisonned, but not all the money was found.

[ZerroDefex]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Union members have to do a better job holding their leaders accountable for their actions. It's no different than any collective body; the members are responsible for holding their leaders accountable. When they allow their power to be whittled away though bylaws and bureaucratic layers the end result is always going to be bad. This is true for unions, publicly traded companies and Governments.

Exactly. Unfortunately the apathy that afflicts most citizens in a democratic government also exists in most union members. They expect their leaders to take care of everything for them and only complain when things are going seriously wrong.

[adastra]

	Originally Posted by ZerroDefex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unions had a good idea behind them, but nowadays they are bloated monstrosities more focused on protecting their own leadership at the expense of the industry and can be a hindrance to progress and innovation. They are more concerned with making it impossible to fire underperforming employees rather than helping skilled ones excel.

Regardless of your ideology, Zerro, this is a typical sound byte parroted by conservatives and libertarians. It's also not true. The goal of a union is not, and has never been, to help skilled workers excel. Unions are an absolute necessity in maintaining a livable wage and a safe working environment. You might think that the need for these things disappeared long ago, but I could provide you with hundreds of examples that prove otherwise.

---------- Post added 10-24-2010 at 07:35 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I believe we should have allowed General Motors to fail, as we did Eastern Airlines, to remind organized labor that there is such a thing as asking for too much.

What was too much? I'm so tired of the assumption that assembly line workers lounge around on gold-plated chariots while management feeds them grapes.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Imagineering]

	Originally Posted by ZerroDefex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unions had a good idea behind them, but nowadays they are bloated monstrosities more focused on protecting their own leadership at the expense of the industry and can be a hindrance to progress and innovation. They are more concerned with making it impossible to fire underperforming employees rather than helping skilled ones excel.

I take it you are a manager.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by tracemhunter To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I used to work as a manager in a unionized company. Unions are a pain in the ass and give the workers far too much power. They would often show up late simply because they knew there would not be any real disciplinary action. An employee could not show up for work without calling 10 days in a row and not get fired.

You must've had the world's crappiest contract then.

My brother worked his way up to union Prez, starting from union steward.

The employees at that company couldn't have gotten away with showing up late or skipping days. The contract wouldn't allow it (why should it?) And if they tried (which some did), my brother would never have backed them.

I do remember years ago, my mom bitching about her union (paper workers) and how they'd back employees who weren't doing the job and weren't even trying. That really pissed her off, thinking she was paying union dues for the privilege of holding down her own work and some of theirs too.

So there are decent unions and unions that are anything but decent.

[titi monkey]

"What was too much? I'm so tired of the assumption that assembly line workers lounge around on gold-plated chariots while management feeds them grapes."

Excerpts from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dated MAY 9, 2005

Normally a company in such straits contracts until it reaches equilibrium. But for GM, shrinkage is not much of an option. Because of its union agreements, the auto maker can't close plants or lay off workers without paying a stiff penalty, no matter how far its sales or profits fall. It must run plants at 80% capacity, minimum, whether they make money or not. Even if it halts its assembly lines, GM must pay laid-off workers and foot their extraordinarily generous health-care and pension costs. Unless GM scores major givebacks from the union, those costs are fixed, at least until the next round of contract talks in two years. The plan has been to run out the clock until actuarial tables tilt in GM's favor (a nice way of saying that older retirees eventually will die off). But with decreasing sales and a smaller slice of the market, that plan backfires -- leaving GM open to an array of highly unattractive possibilities.

Remember the old ad slogan, "This is not your father's Oldsmobile"? Well, this is no longer your father's auto industry -- but GM is still run as if it were. Fifteen years ago management struck a deal with unions that made it all but impossible to close auto plants or lay off workers without incurring massive costs. GM also agreed to cushy retiree benefits that put it at a severe disadvantage. Much of what ails GM today flows from that accounting reality and its inability to increase the business at home. The need to keep those plants running, to generate cash, and to feed a sprawling web of aging auto brands compromises car design and results in too many models that sit for years without an update. The bedrock principle upon which GM was built -- offering a car to feed every market segment -- has degraded into a series of contrived brands, most with little identity, and bland, overlapping product lines.

But Wagoner will be hard-pressed to get enough relief on medical costs, at least before the scheduled contract negotiations in 2007. The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Mich., estimates that GM could save at least $1.2 billion a year just by closing the gap in co-payments and deductibles between different kinds of employees. A single, salaried worker pays at least $100 a month toward health costs, while hourly union workers pay no premiums and only a $5 co-pay on drugs. But so far, the United Auto Workers leadership has shown no sign that it's willing to reopen a contract that still has two more years to run. When GM's Group Vice-President for labor relations Gary L. Cowger suggested synching up the union and nonunion plans, UAW Vice-President Richard Shoemaker quipped: "If GM wants to give the salaried workers the same health-care plan we have, we're happy to share."

I don't blame the Union for asking for these terms and I don't blame the Company for agreeing to them. But why the government involvement?

[zibber]

Unions are necessary but face a few problems:

- There is a mechanism whereby people who have worked their way up to the top echelons of a union start mostly protecting their own position. I have a lot of experience working with Dutch unions, and it's always a struggle between workers and "management", as if it were a company. It is as if union management would prefer that workers just shut up and pay their fee, without making too much trouble. What sucks about that is that workers have to put their free time into union work, while paid union members are.. paid union members. They have much more energy (and pull).

- In capitalism, companies are in constant competition to have the lowest prices possible. One of the most obvious means to achieve this is paying workers as little as possible. If a company has a strong union that ensures its workers don't get underpaid, this company becomes less competitive. Capitalism is most favourable towards companies with little to no union presence, which is why you will always find conservatives (as well as "liberals" (of the right wing kind) and some libertarians) arguing against unions (with the flimsiest, most non-ethical arguments imaginable).

Originally Posted by tracemhunter To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I used to work as a manager in a unionized company. Unions are a pain in the ass and give the workers far too much power. They would often show up late simply because they knew there would not be any real disciplinary action. An employee could not show up for work without calling 10 days in a row and not get fired. Unions are the reason Chrysler went belly up. They asked for too damn much even after they had retired.

Yeah. Sweatshops for the fucking win!

[mormeguil]

	I don't blame the Union for asking for these terms and I don't blame the Company for agreeing to them. But why the government involvement?

Personally I would blame the compagny for excepting those terms. The compagny agreed to a contract it could not uphold and is now in trouble. I don't quite get why the union worker get all the blame on this one.

There is a mechanism whereby people who have worked their way up to the top echelons of a union start mostly protecting their own position. I have a lot of experience working with Dutch unions, and it's always a struggle between workers and "management", as if it were a company. It is as if union management would prefer that workers just shut up and pay their fee, without making too much trouble. What sucks about that is that workers have to put their free time into union work, while paid union members are.. paid union members. They have much more energy (and pull).

I agree with you perfectly and this also cause a second problem. Older person in those position are mostly looking after themself and people with similar needs. This cause a problem with new younger employee that want different things. These worker would need to fight the inertia and put a lot of effort to get what they want (like more flexible work schedule for family with children instead of higher retirement).

Now, there as to be a way to stop these from happening. Is there some way to get union to work more ? Maybe an obligatory close that each worker get paid by the worker union to participate in it. Could be a pretty low wage but it might be enought of a motivator.

	In capitalism, companies are in constant competition to have the lowest prices possible. One of the most obvious means to achieve this is paying workers as little as possible. If a company has a strong union that ensures its workers don't get underpaid, this company becomes less competitive.

Then again, I look at some of the salaries in uper management and wonder if simply making these a bit more reasonable might not be enought to make the organisation competitive.

	Yeah. Sweatshops for the fucking win!

This might look like a joke, but I honestly think there is a risk of things going this way. There is still a need for worker to have some power, This power can come from the governement that can put laws in place or from the workers uniting. Maybe there is a third option that I don't see, but the need is very real.

[aku chi]

On the one hand, unions are almost always beneficial to the workers that they represent (otherwise, the workers wouldn't agree to the union). Being a supporter of free association motivated by self interest, I respect the inclination of workers in particular fields to join or form unions.

On the other hand, unions often have a negative effect on those who are not a part of the union. In particular, unions tend to hurt prospective employees in the fields whose employees the unions represent. This is because the unions represent currently employeed individuals. It is in the interest of those individuals to keep their jobs and to receive a higher salary. Unions, therefore, dedicate most of their resources towards preventing their members from being fired and by decreasing the supply of prospective employees (lower supply of labor naturally leads to higher salaries for those currently employed). To keep supply of labor lower, unions often create barriers of entry into the field, most notably through employee licensing or certification. Licensing and certification are often argued as a way to increase the quality of employees in a particular field. But licensing or certification primarily increases the costs to prospective employees of entering the field and allows unions to have a more direct control over the employees that will later make up their ranks. I don't think it's a coincidence that the majority of industries with a strong union presence happen to also have employee certification or licensing.

I think I would be more supportive of unions if their power was limited to the realm of voluntary transactions. Unfortunately, unions also have political power, which they use to support their most damaging policies (employee license requirement legislation, for instance). Unions certainly aren't unique in this regard: firm stageholders often use the political process to enact self-serving legislature that decreases economic efficiency. On the whole, I'm more inclined to antagonize political institutions than employee unions or firm stakeholders.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by aku chi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	On the one hand, unions are almost always beneficial to the workers that they represent (otherwise, the workers wouldn't agree to the union). Being a supporter of free association motivated by self interest, I respect the inclination of workers in particular fields to join or form unions.

I agree that membership in a Union should be voluntary, not a condition of employment; but it is a delicate issue. For instance; does the Union only represent the members during negotiations and not the other workers in the same area? Does the Company treat some of it's employees differently than others even if they are doing the exact same job? How would promotions be handled?

On the other hand, unions often have a negative effect on those who are not a part of the union. In particular, unions tend to hurt prospective employees in the fields whose employees the unions represent. This is because the unions represent currently employeed individuals. It is in the interest of those individuals to keep their jobs and to receive a higher salary. Unions, therefore, dedicate most of their resources towards preventing their members from being fired and by decreasing the supply of prospective employees (lower supply of labor naturally leads to higher salaries for those currently employed). To keep supply of labor lower, unions often create barriers of entry into the field, most notably through employee licensing or certification. Licensing and certification are often argued as a way to increase the quality of employees in a particular field. But licensing or certification primarily increases the costs to prospective employees of entering the field and allows unions to have a more direct control over the employees that will later make up their ranks. I don't think it's a coincidence that the majority of industries with a strong union presence happen to also have employee certification or licensing.

It's not just Unions. Most professional occupations (in the U.S.) have used licenses and certificates to keep the competition away. It's been used against paralegals, real estate brokers, physician assistants, accountants, and many others. But just as with the professionals, if the certificates and licenses are meaningful, they will produce more qualified workers.
It's true that for many young people, breaking into certain industries is difficult. But I don't think a proper Union would allow it's members to be thrown out just because they got old and the Company wanted to replace them with a younger crowd. If you've worked hard and earned what you've achieved, you would probably fight to keep it also. Yes, worthless people will abuse the system - but that's a matter to be taken up in negotiations.

I think I would be more supportive of unions if their power was limited to the realm of voluntary transactions. Unfortunately, unions also have political power, which they use to support their most damaging policies (employee license requirement legislation, for instance). Unions certainly aren't unique in this regard: firm stageholders often use the political process to enact self-serving legislature that decreases economic efficiency. On the whole, I'm more inclined to antagonize political institutions than employee unions or firm stakeholders.

I completely agree that Unions should never use membership dues to directly contribute to a political campaign. The thought of that rubs me all kinds of wrong.

[mormeguil]

	I agree that membership in a Union should be voluntary, not a condition of employment; but it is a delicate issue. For instance; does the Union only represent the members during negotiations and not the other workers in the same area? Does the Company treat some of it's employees differently than others even if they are doing the exact same job? How would promotions be handled?

Well, you usually become part of the Union of that compagny when you start to work in it. So it's not a condition and it's not volontury either. A voluntury methid would somewhat defeat the purpose of making the work relationship based on a contract since some could be excluded and others not.

ANd yes, union only represent they're own worker since they are the one paying for this and they are the one that want to be in a contract. You can't have both. Not be in a union and have it some other way.

If by some form or another some employee from a different union of from a non-unionised section could get the same promotion as union member. This would have to be detailled in the contract. If it's not, then the employer decides.

[80085]

Unions are the reason we have paid vacation, health benefits (some of us), paid holidays, no child labor, and limits on work hours (unless you are exempt). The best way to look at unions today (in my opinion) is to look at the conditions that were in place when they came on the scene. Needless to say things were not pretty, but it was the dawning of the industrial revolution when work conditions were nowhere near what they are today.

I realize things have gotten out of hand with unions, but with the expansion to a "global economy" (that word makes me want to puke I hear it so much) and the revolution of technology and information systems we have today, our culture has a lot of catching up to do. What stinks is the U.S. is forcing the destruction of unions instead of forcing them to reorganize (even though they have done this numerous times before) while lowering our work standards to meet those of the developing world. In the U.S. deviation towards the mean is not a good thing, for most of us.

Now that the labor market is flooded again and workers are being exploited I would hope that the topic of a more perfect labor union would be revisited. Currently, all I see is union busting activity in the name of competition (which is a good point).

A system without child labor and where workers can voice and collectively bargain for their wages in good faith while remaining competitive in a global economy (cack!) sounds like a job for a bunch of INTJs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eagleseven]

Unions have a place, no doubt. But just like monopolies and cartels, they need to be broken up when they get too powerful.

A union that controls all the skilled labor in a given sector is just as bad as a single corporation that controls everything produced in a given sector. The union should be required to compete against both rival unions and non-union shops, per anti-trust law.

[Paul Siraisi]

I do think there is a legitimate place for strictly regulated unions as a counterbalance to certain levels of corporate power.